Maybe it's time for a new meme. Maybe it's time we latch on to negative political campaigning and wring every last scrap of negativity possible out of each and every story, innuendo, lingering cop, infidelity, and cavalcades of both tax payer money and substance abuse.

However, I'm pretty skeptical in general of the great sex abuse hysteria, particularly in relationship to the Catholic Church. Hard to separate cases that have some validly from those piled on because the money was there for the taking.

Who knows?

But, we're apparently in for nuclear war in Wisconsin. Bring it on! No shortage of entertainment.

And the ad was paid for by whom? Any Wisconsin State Employees Union money?

That money's connected to dues bone; the dues bone's connected to payroll deduction bone; the payroll deduction bone's connected to state coffer bone; the state coffer bone's connected to the tax bone; the tax bone's connected to your bone!

That money's connected to dues bone; the dues bone's connected to payroll deduction bone; the payroll deduction bone's connected to state coffer bone; the state coffer bone's connected to the tax bone; the tax bone's connected to your bone!

Funny and true.

The Democratic dogs ain't letting you drag that bone out of their jaws without a fight. Look out, they're sicking the pit bulls on you!

Troy J. Merryfield, who now lives in Suffolk, Va., released a statement Friday that says the ad by the Greater Wisconsin Committee is “offensive, inaccurate and out of context” and that he would actually vote for Prosser if he was a Wisconsin resident. He wrote that he wanted the group to remove the ad from the airwaves.

Here is a link to the story from 2008, where the lead claims: In 1979, then Outagamie County District Attorney David Prosser told a mother he did not want to prosecute a Green Bay priest who had abused her sons because "it would be too hard on the boys," newly released documents indicate.

Here is a link to the story from 2008, where the lead claims: In 1979, then Outagamie County District Attorney David Prosser told a mother he did not want to prosecute a Green Bay priest who had abused her sons because "it would be too hard on the boys," newly released documents indicate.

Just read the article. You've deliberately missated. The alleged victim said that Prosser said that. There is no direct quote from Prosser in the article.

Don't know what really happened. DAs decide to prosecute or not to prosecute every day.

But, you've deliberately presented the statement of the alleged victim as Prosser's statement.

The facts appear to be that Prosser did not want to prosecute a child molesting priest (as noted above by r-v). This priest went on to molest other children and eventually wound up in jail 25 years later. Had Prosser elected to prosecute in 1979, the priest's career as a child molester might have been shortened by 20 years or more.

There doesn't appear to be any dispute about the facts or Prosser's actions. This is not an example of anti-Catholic bigotry or hysteria about child abuse. This is the case of a real live child molester who was not prosecuted because of the DA's discretion who went on to molest other children.

Yes, the ad is inflammatory (oh, get out the ice-pack) and it's unfair to cast Prosser as siding with perverts. But, the facts are what they are. Prosser was insufficiently diligent in protecting Wisconsin children from molesting priests and his lassitude resulted in more children being molested. If you don't want to be portrayed as being soft on child sex abuse, don't be soft on child sex abuse.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with who should be elected to sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

This is just idiotic. DAs have many reasons not to prosecute, including lack of enough concrete evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard in criminal cases. They don't put the victims through a trial that is likely to end in acquittal. Anyone who thinks about it for about three seconds should see through this.

Milwakee Journal Sentinal: "In 1979, then Outagamie County District Attorney David Prosser told a mother he did not want to prosecute a Green Bay priest who had abused her sons because "it would be too hard on the boys," newly released documents indicate. The priest, John Patrick Feeney, who is now 81, went on to abuse other children before he was sent to jail in 2004."

Are they taking something out of context? If so, what (specifically) is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal taking out of context?

This judge refused to prosecute a pedophile. That pedophile - thus - went on to abuse even more children.

Had Judge Prosser prosecuted that pedopile priest - then those OTHER CHILDREN wouldn't have been raped by that pedophile priest.

That is the gist of what the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article says.

But hey, read if to for yourself here:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29510659.html

I have yet to see anyone write anything to suggest that this is taken out of context or is somehow out of bounds or "negative."

They're just facts.

Fact: A mother begged Judge Prosser to prosecute the rapist of her children.

Fact: He declined to.

Fact: The rapist went on to molest even more kids.

Fact: But was eventually prosecuted by others.

These are not "negative" facts or "positive" facts. They're just facts.

That's right. For example if they're bribed. Or they're devoted Catholics and don't want to hurt the church. Or their major campaign donors are church hierarchy. Or maybe Judge Prosser is secretly part of a cabal of child rapists himself. Maybe he's President of NAMBLA. It's unknowable.

Not all the reasons not to prosecute are noble ones. Anyone who thinks about this for 3 seconds could see this.

His reason to let a pedophile walk can be debated as long as you want - but the RECORD of him doing so is FAIR GAME for any advertisements when this judge is standing for ELECTION.

There is not "a victim" in question. The pedophile priests molested DOZENS of children.

Having noted that, nothing in that letter indicates with any specificity how the ad is "inaccurate" or how Judge Prossor's failure to prosecute a child rapist is being taken "out of context."

I'm sure Judge Prosser's only concern was the welfare of the two raped kids and had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the Catholic Church. I take him at his word.

Guess he didn't think about all the future children who would be victims of his decision not to do his fucking job.

Judge Prosser made a choice. Kids were raped BECAUSE he chose poorly. Voters have a right to know that and it's not "negative" to inform voters of Judge Prosser's decision and its horrible, horrible ramifications for the many, many children subsequently raped because Judge Prosser made such a bad, bad decision.

You might want to read what one of the actual victims on whose behalf Prosser acted about the ad:

http://wispolitics.com/1006/110324_Troy_Merryfield_Statement__1_.pdf

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/118650379.html

The decision not to prosecute during Prosser's tenure allowed for Feeney to be convicted (of the same offenses) in 2004. The victim says that he would vote for Prosser, if he lived in the state, and calls for the ad to be taken off the air.

Not all the reasons not to prosecute are noble ones. Anyone who thinks about this for 3 seconds could see this.

Which is precisely why this is completely irrelevant. The conclusion they are clearly seeking to have us draw is that there is some nefarious reason for it. If it's unknowable, the fact is irrelevant. Not to mention nearly 40 years old.

I'm amazed at how the left can justify this type of attack while touting civility in public discourse out the other side of their mouths.

wv: barse - abbreviation of big farce, which is what this attack ad is.

AND the only "fact" is that he did not prosecute at that time, not that he "failed" to do so. That implies that he had some sort of obligation to do so regardless of the evidence available to him at the time.

That's quite a leap of logic you make here. We do not know that he chose poorly at all. It may have been the wisest choice with the information available at the time. That the priest was later convicted proves nothing about the DA's ability to convict him at an earlier time.

There is so much more to this story than the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is telling as well as any of the liberal claptrap websites. These media entities only tell the part of the story the supports their side and if any of you here have any time other than to make nasty comments take 15 minutes of your precious time and read more than liberal websites for information.

Have you actually read his opinions? He's no moron. While he has ruled in my favor on cases, he has also ruled against me a couple of times. While I did not like the outcome of the cases I lost, I thought his reasoning was still very sound. And, quite independent of the "politics" of the case ("my" side happens to be one favored more by conservatives than liberals).

He applied the law - he didn't try to re-draft it. I appreciated that.

Evidence in a later case proves nothing about available evidence in an earlier one.

Lawgirl ... please take a moment and THINK before writing.

1) Judge Prosser declined to prosecute the priest for raping 2 kids (for whatever reason). So, there was no evidence presented in any case because there was no prosecution sought.

2) The priest went on to commit even more rapes of different children.

3) Eventually, his new victims convinced a DIFFERENT, SUBSEQUENT prosecutor to actually, you know, prosecute the sicko priest.

4) The pedophile that Prosser refused to prosecute was then prosecuted. Now, at this very final stage, some EVIDENCE was submitted to a court of law. The priest was easily convicted of raping the original 2 kids, plus all the other ones.

Only one person decided to prosecute the priest and it wasn't Judge Prosser.

It's nice to know that the AstroTurfers are being deployed in full force this early in the campaign cycle.

We have at least 20 MORE months of Ut and his paid cohorts smearing dirt and repeating unsubstantiated statements.

For all the "facts" at the AstroTurfer's disposal, there remains one salient FACT: the article uses an UNCORROBORATED statement based on 30+ year old memories which may or may not even represent the whole of that person's statement on the matter.

Go ahead and try that case and see how fast you get laughed out of the courtroom, Axelrod.

It's just more business as usual from the same dirty Chicago Democrats rearing it's ugly head.

God help us but it's not going to stop until it's made clear that AstroTurfers aren't welcome ANYWHERE.

Lawirl:"Nope. Evidence in a later case proves nothing about available evidence in an earlier one. I stand by my statement that it proves NOTHING. Nothing."

It appears to be the exact same case. Feeney was convicted in 2004 of the exact same crimes that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979. Absent some sort of blue dress, evidence comes down to the statements of the victims which were probably the same in 1979 as in 2004.

Again, this has nothing to do with who is the better candidate in the current election.

Running this negative ad only means the unions are turning on the money spigot. And, Prosser is still ahead.

Even though the "Daisy Ad," run only once by LBJ, got a lot of mileage ... to the point it can be mentioned, today, and people know it. Doesn't mean that's why Goldwater lost! Goldwater was his own worst enemy. That's why he lost.

I'd imagine, too, that this is a statewide election. Not just the locals of Dane County.

April 5th's results will be interesting to see. As long as there's a paper trail. And, not computers that produce the results that not only really defraud, on their results. But have no paper trail.

It appears to be the exact same case. Feeney was convicted in 2004 of the exact same crimes that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979. Absent some sort of blue dress, evidence comes down to the statements of the victims which were probably the same in 1979 as in 2004.

According to one source I read, it could be a misstatement that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979. Even that apparent fact seems to be in dispute.

One source I read states that the family itself decided not to cooperate in the prosecution.

Ut, the idea that people hate negative ads but they are used anyway because they work is the accepted mantra of almost all political operatives, i.e. consultants. The academic literature is a bit more nuanced, but you can find plenty of support for that very claim in the literature review here: http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu/wjmcr/vol02/2-1a-B.htm

" ... this has nothing to do with who is the better candidate in the current election."

That's right. My beef is with Althouse claiming this is a "negative" ad.

It is not "negative."

It is merely "informative."

It presents undisputed facts and allows the public to decide whether or not Judge Prosser is a good judge - or whether he's a fucking MORON.

I've decided he's a fucking MORON since he thought it was advisable to let a child rapist go free (for whatever well-meaning reason you care to cite).

To me ... that's just fucking dumb and shows that he can't be a good judge because he's too fucking stupid.

The ad never called him a dumb fucking moron. The ad merely presented some facts upon which you can draw your own judgments.

Republicans WILL be judged based on their RECORD. If you vote to fund NPR ... then that's on your RECORD. If you vote to raise the debt ... that's on your RECORD. If you vote to pay for studies of fleas fucking, then that's on your record. If you vote to fund Democrats, then that's on your record.

Nice to know that even the slowest among us (yes, this means you), has finally realized what a colossal mistake they made when they voted for a guy who lets the 3 AM call go to voice mail so that he make tee time at 9 AM.

Any other sound advice you can give us about avoiding voting for Obama and his accomplices in 2012?

Are all you people not doing any research on this story!!!! The "mother" said she believed the diocese and decided not to move forward with the case! If there was not going to be any testimony by her sons what kind of case would Prosser have had????

"Are all you people not doing any research on this story!!!! The "mother" said she believed the diocese and decided not to move forward with the case!"

Paminwi ... why don't you provide a LINK to your source material that you've researched. That way, people can judge for themselves and they don't have to take your word for it.

But even if what you say is so, I would respond by reminding you that society doesn't allow mothers to decide whether child rapists should be allowed to remain free to rape again.

It's too emotional a decision.

That's why we have prosecutors and police. These professionals are supposed to make unemotional decisions based on the law and what is good not just for the mother, or even just the raped kids ... but ALL of society.

"It appears to be the exact same case. Feeney was convicted in 2004 of the exact same crimes that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979. Absent some sort of blue dress, evidence comes down to the statements of the victims which were probably the same in 1979 as in 2004."

Compare and contrast public attitudes towards priests in 1979 and 1994.

In 1979, a priest molesting kids would be hard to believe for most people. In 1994, much easier for most to believe because it was well known to happen:

"1985: In first abuse case to draw national attention, Father Gilbert Gauthe pleaded guilty to 11 cases of sexually abusing children in Lafayette, La., including altar boys and Boy Scouts. Served 10 years in prison.

1992: U.S. bishops meeting in South Bend, Ind., admit that some bishops tried to hide abuse.

1993: Rev. James Porter of Fall River, Mass., pleaded guilty to 41 counts of sexually abusing children in five states in 1960s and 1970s. Porter, who gave up his priesthood in 1974, was sentenced to 18 to 20 years in prison. He died in 2005 at age 70."

Assent strong physical evidence, abuse cases turn on credibility.

In 1994, even though it was 15 years later, it was easier to get a conviction. Jurors were more prepared to believe the allegations. That would be even more true now.

"All you care about is Kloppenberg will torpedo the Walker legislation."

I'm not really too focused on the short-term. In fact, I believe that Walker wins if his legislation is hijacked by Democrat judges.

People need to see these Democrat judges hijack their country. Need to see it in broad daylight so they understand what we're up against.

But Prosser will get no pass from me, bub.

Guy let a pedophile child rapist rape again.

There has to be a price paid for that in my book.

I hope he is fired by the people of Wisconsin for this reason. And I hope all the other prosecutors in the country are watching it so they can see what fate will befall them if they make such an epically stupid decision in their future.

Why not spend some time telling us why Judge Prosser should remain a judge besides your naked assertion that he is a guaranteed vote to uphold Walker legislation (which would be unethical if it was true).

Ut wrote: I don't really have a side (I'm probably closest politically to Charles Krauthammer).

Even a cursory glance at what you're written here in the past under the guise of "Ut" shows that you are never "for" something -- always just mobying around to stir things up. You kind of remind me of "Florida". So I'll say to you what I say to the rest of the "profiles not available" types: fuck you and good bye.

I think you have made us aware of your point. Indeed you have made the same point in most of your numerous posts. But it is clear that there are many of us that believe you are simply wrong. Isn't that what a discussion is all about?

It is a good thing we have elections from time to time so that our differences may be evaluated by the voters.

My question to you is whether you are trying to persuade or trying to pound the same point until some of us change our minds?

"Generally I don't bother to engage you since you're an insufferable asshole but where in the public record does it refer to "priests?"

Can you name a pedophile priest that Prosser DID prosecute? It is my belief (based on what I will admit is a not unlimited knowledge of Prosser's entire prosecutorial career) that he never once prosecuted a pedophile priest.

But if you have some additional information, that would be helpful.

But let's remember that Prosser stood idly and knowingly by while the priest he knew molested those two boys was sent into another jurisdiction. He met with the bishop. Arranged it.

Knowing what he knew.

And yet, he didn't warn anybody.

Could have.

Didn't.

Kids were then raped.

Children.

Just innocent children - raped because Prosser chose (for whatever good-intention reasons he now explains) to let the guy go.

"But it is clear that there are many of us that believe you are simply wrong."

I've stated some undisputed facts and then voiced my opinion. None of the facts that I've proffered were wrong, but if you disagree ... please tell me HOW I'm wrong.

I merely think that a prosecutor who uses his prosecutorial discretion to allow a vicious pedophile to remain on the streets to rape again has made a grievously stupid decision. And that informing voters of this dumb ass decision is not out of bounds.

My question to you is whether you are trying to persuade or trying to pound the same point until some of us change our minds?

We need people like Ut to express the cold-eyed rage that many of us feel. That he is not "nuanced" is a plus IMHO. Ut is an American patriot and I salute him and all like him. They make the country WORK.

3) "Astroturfer" (hahahaha - This one is really funny. I wish I got paid by the word for what I write here ... you just THINK it's Althouse's blog but it's not really. It's MINE! I write twice as much as Ann does here.)

4) "the slowest among us"

5) "transparent smear"er

6) "concern troll"

7) "insufferable asshole"

Believe it or not ... that's not even a record number name-callers.

I thought it was only Democrats that engaged in name-calling. Surprised to see so much of it in an Althouse thread.

I merely think that a prosecutor who uses his prosecutorial discretion to allow a vicious pedophile to remain on the streets to rape again has made a grievously stupid decision.

Having been a prosecutor, I don't agree with this part of your argument. I have often been in the position in which I declined to prosecute because the evidence that I had available to me at the time would not result in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. In such instances my duty was to decline to prosecute. I was not into show trials.

I am reasonably certain that my failure to prosecute under those circumstances allowed the accused parties to commit other crimes like those that I could not in good conscience prosecute. I did not consider myself at fault for future crimes of those I could not prosecute. Similarly, I did not consider myself at fault if an individual whom I prosecuted and was acquitted by a jury went on to commit like crimes after acquittal.

Prosecutorial discretion can be exercised for good or bad reasons. Without knowing more facts than those in your links, I could not agree that Prosser had bad reasons for declining to prosecute the pedophile priest.

And that informing voters of this dumb ass decision is not out of bounds.

If I believed the decision not to prosecute was "dumb ass", truthfully informing the voters is not out of bounds IMO.

"Without knowing more facts than those in your links, I could not agree that Prosser had bad reasons for declining to prosecute the pedophile priest."

OK then. Let me give you some more facts.

1) Prosser met with the archdiocese bishop to discuss the allegations.

2) Prosser and the Bishop then met with the mother and convinced her not to go forward with the trial.

According to press accounts, Prosser told a mother he did not want to prosecute the pedophile because "it would be too hard on the boys" -- even though the two victims were prepared and willing to testify.

3) Prosser, accompanied by a deacon and another member of the parish, went to the woman's home, where he told her the trial would be too hard on her sons.

Sound like a dispassionate prosecutor to you, sir? Or someone pressuring a worried parent?

5) "I was ready to take the stand," Troy Merryfield the victim said. "He (Prosser) said it would be too embarrassing for a kid my age and said what jury would believe a kid testifying against a priest? Then he said, what really makes it bad is that Feeney's brother, Joe, sang on the Lawrence Welk show and everybody watched that back then."

So, now with this new information, counselor, do you care to change your pleading?

Would you vote for a man who let a pedophile priest he believed to be guilty go free to rape again (even if he did so for a well-meaning reason)? Is it out of bounds to air a political ad about this decision he made?

Is it "negative" to tell voters who may be unaware of his actions that he did this?

I don't think it's out of bounds, or negative, for voters to have this information.

Althouse calls this a "negative" or "subliiminal" ad. It's not negative. It doesn't make any false statements that I can see. Merely recounts the man's record.

"Lawirl:"Nope. Evidence in a later case proves nothing about available evidence in an earlier one. I stand by my statement that it proves NOTHING. Nothing."

It appears to be the exact same case. Feeney was convicted in 2004 of the exact same crimes that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979. Absent some sort of blue dress, evidence comes down to the statements of the victims which were probably the same in 1979 as in 2004."

The ability to convict based on the statements of the victims likely differs between 1979 and 2004. Prosser could have honestly felt that prosecution would have hurt the victims again with little hope of conviction and been right or wrong about that. Attitudes about how best to serve the victims has also changed in 30 years.

If nothing else, no one today would ever ever believe that a school or church or someone else would "take care of it". That Posser seems to have accepted this assurance is unfortunate, but doesn't at all prove some desire to protect the priest.

3) "Astroturfer" (hahahaha - This one is really funny. I wish I got paid by the word for what I write here ... you just THINK it's Althouse's blog but it's not really. It's MINE! I write twice as much as Ann does here.)

4) "the slowest among us"

5) "transparent smear"er

6) "concern troll"

7) "insufferable asshole"

Believe it or not ... that's not even a record number name-callers.

I thought it was only Democrats that engaged in name-calling. Surprised to see so much of it in an Althouse thread.

What was the percentage of Catholics to other religions in the county at the time? e.g. where I grew up in NW PA, Catholics made up more than 1/2 of the population back then. To the extent that Catholics in the jury pool approached 50%, it would be nearly impossible to seat a jury without several Catholics. It only takes one to hang a jury.

Is there any evidence other than the testimony of the alleged victim? If not, what is your evaluation of the relative credibility between the victim and the accused?

How far in the past was the alleged assault?

Did the victim report the assault to anyone at or about the time it allegedly occurred?

If so, to whom?

If so, how credible does/do the witness(es) to the complaint appear to be?

There are more questions, but these are illustrative.

I haven't seen anything including the info you linked to that answer any of these questions which would be critical to a potential prosecution.

Shi...Listen and you shall see that Obama doesn't suck at what he does. He is a genius at what he does. It is "troubling" that Obama plans to starve the USA from its needed energy resources at the same time he plans to devalue the US dollar into worthless paper. He is a real genius at being a Fifth Columnist inside the White House as he diligently uses every crisis to distract our attention from his plans for our destruction which are reaching critical mass.

Regardless of what Prosser did 30 years ago, the debate on TV last night showed that Kloppenberg's head was in the clouds, and that she had no idea of what she was talking about. It's sad that Wisconsin's financial destiny may sit in her hands.

She gave vague answers, as pretty much every other Democrat has in Madison and in D.C. to explain everything from blowjobs (Clinton) to Libya (Obama).

I was recently on a jury in a child sex case. The seven year old girl testified that the accused had done it. The accused's brother-in-law testified that the accused had admitted to it. The accused offered no defense. Yet we had a hung jury. Only three out of twelve voted guilty.

"I encourage you to sit in conversation with a victim of child abuse, Synova and then review Judge Prosser's actions again in that light."

Why do you assume that if only I *really understood* how terrible it was, that I'd agree with you? I don't *know* if Prosser should have prosecuted the priest at the time. I don't have enough information. I'm only trying to point out to YOU that you don't know either and no amount of horror at the crime or belief that the guy was guilty beyond any doubt, changes that.

You act as though there is no legitimate way to even begin to think that perhaps the trial itself is a repetition of the abuse. You act as though the *conviction* itself was Prossers choice based on his belief of who was guilty instead of his best guess as to the outcome of a trial brought to a jury.

And the add doesn't simply let voters know the facts. The add suggests what you just claimed not to care about (which is also proven a lie from everything you've written here) that you're not interested in Prossers *desires*. Yet the add, and you, are all about how what Prosser *wanted* was to let this guy go, to protect the church, that he refused to even INVESTIGATE, which "fact" I haven't seen supported anywhere.

We're supposed to believe because the ad outright SAYS that Prosser wanted to protect child molesters.

That's not facts, it's speculation about his motivation. And not even speculation since it's not presented as anything other than proven.